Vol. 3 No. 11
I beg to move: "That this Bill be received for final consideration."
I should like to state in connection with the point raised here on the last occasion by some Deputies that we are making arrangements to set up an inquiry into the Tramway charges, and I find, on looking at the Act, that we have some more power than we thought we had when speaking on the last occasion. Of course obviously there is no purpose in setting up an Inquiry until the Bill becomes law.
I beg to second the motion.
Is it only in connection with the Tramways that this Inquiry will be instituted? Have you any authority to institute an Inquiry into the railways? Certainly some of the charges made by the railways on some goods are out of all proportion to the value of these goods.
The Minister has performed a very remarkable tour de force in regard to this Bill. He has got the Bill through without the change of a comma, and in spite of that he has satisfied his critics. The Minister, in the course of the discussion, although he did not accept the improved machinery suggested to him, has definitely undertaken to give us the inquiry we wanted, and to set up an Advisory Committee. I only rise for the purpose of putting on record a fact of some importance in connection with the inquiry. It was stated, on the last occasion, that there was doubt as to whether the Minister would have power to revise the stages for which fares are charged by the trams. It is obviously important that he should have that power. Nobody wants to be unfair to the Tramway Company, but it will be considerably easier to deal with the matter properly if the present stages can be adjusted by an adjustment of fares. I wish to draw attention to Section 1 of the Tramways Act of 1920 which expressly says “that an order authorising any increase in the Statutory maximum charges applicable to the Tramway undertaking may attach such conditions thereto as the Minister may think proper and may modify the statutory provisions.” Therefore, if there be at the present moment special Acts of Parliament relating to the Dublin and Cork Tramways whereby certain stages are provided, or if there be orders under certain Acts of Parliament whereby certain stages are provided for certain fares, the Minister is not bound by such provisions. I trust we may take it that, in the general inquiry which is going to be made, that fact will be borne in mind, and that the public desire to have the present stages modified will also be borne in mind by the Minister.
I desire to say that I am going to oppose this Bill, because I think the powers given in it under Clause 3 are a hindrance to the development of the trade and commerce of this country, and anything that is a hindrance to the development of the trade and commerce of the country adversely affects employment. If the powers under Clause 3 are extended to 31st December, they will increase, rather than decrease, the number of unemployed in the country. The powers asked for under this Clause state that it shall be lawful "for each of the several Canal Undertakings specified in the First Column of the Third Schedule to this Act to continue for so long as this section remains in force to charge the several rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges which were respectively directed by the Orders specified in the Second Column of the said Third Schedule to be charged by such Undertakings respectively."
I contend that any inquiry such as that promised by the Minister must naturally confine itself and its recommendations to matters connected with the Dublin Tramway Co., and has no power whatever to revise, or to deal with, the rates of canal companies. Canal rates, especially where canal companies act as carrying companies, have private agreements with railway companies. In many cases these canal companies are owned and controlled by railway companies, and therefore any increased or decreased rates fixed by canal companies are generally the outcome of conferences dominated by railway directors. I contend that, so far as the railway rates now in operation in the Free State area are concerned, they will always be a guide to the canal companies which are under the control, and in some cases owned by, the railway companies. So far as any reduction of rates is concerned, the high railway rates and charges at present in operation were authorised at a time when the cost of labour and materials was much higher than it is at present. Railway and canal companies have always contended, so far as the public is concerned, that any reduction in wages, or in the cost of materials, would be followed by a decrease in railway and canal rates and fares. That has not been the case in the Free State area. In the case of the railway companies, the wages of their employees, taken on an average, have been reduced by £1 per week, while the reduction has been something less in the case of canal companies' employees.
I want to know from the Minister, who asks us to give an extended period for the increased rates, on what grounds such an increase has been justified? I have had reason to think, from the knowledge I have gained, particularly within the last couple of days, that there is a move on, so far as the Northern Railway Companies and the British Railway Companies who act as carrying companies to Free State ports, are concerned, to place the traders of the Free State at a disadvantage in regard to rates and charges. The railway rates generally in the Free State are, at the present time, 150 per cent. above the pre-war figure. The railway rates for carrying companies to Free State ports from British ports are 75 per cent. above pre-war rates. The railway rates for certain classes of agricultural produce within and around the border of the Six County area are 100 per cent. over pre-war rates. Therefore, that is giving a decided advantage to the people who wish to import goods either from Great Britain or the Six Counties into the Free State, so far as the selling prices of their goods are concerned. I contend that the influence of the State under the present administration, or under any administration that may succeed it, especially in foreign lands, through the League of Nations or any other association of world powers with which it is associated, will depend on its ability to maintain its position in the British and world markets, and not upon the sentimental influences of its citizens in foreign countries, such as prevailed in the past. I urge that powers of this kind, given without satisfying ourselves that there is a necessity for extension of such powers will put a chain around our own necks, and destroy trade and commerce in the Free State area. It was possible, previous to the Treaty, to revise rates and freight charges so far as railway and canal companies were concerned, by the bodies affected making an appeal to the Rates Tribunal, which has now ceased to exist. If such a Rates Tribunal were in existence, I could see a means by which a Clause such as No. 3 could be modified.
I am not satisfied that any inquiry such as that promised by the Minister here, especially regarding tramways, is going to deal with the situation we are confronted with in regard to canals and railways. It seems to be the policy of the Canal and Railway Companies, especially since the Treaty was signed, to cut down, as far as possible, running expenses and to maintain, and where possible increase, dividends, and particularly and significantly to add whatever they can to the reserve funds of the Companies. That is in anticipation of some declaration of policy on the part of the Government as to how it intends to deal with the transport services of the country. By postponing a declaration of Government policy regarding the future of such services, you are hindering instead of helping the trade and commerce of the Free State. The Government should, at the earliest possible moment, make a declaration of its policy regarding the future of such an undertaking. Taking the Canal Company as an example, I have gone to a lot of trouble looking through their balance sheets. I find that in 1919 their reserve fund stood at £60,000. In 1920 it was increased by £2,000, and in 1921 it was increased by £40,000. The Railway Companies are in the same position. Huge reserve funds such as those should not be added to. The undertakings should, in the ordinary course of events, give the benefit of such profits to the trading community and to the development of commerce within the area. While they have those powers, and while there is no body in existence to revise the rates now in operation—and they will be allowed to remain in operation until 31st December —there is no possible chance of these Companies doing anything different to what they have done since they got the power in September, 1920. The Grand Canal Co. has an understanding with the G.S.W.R. Co.; by the way, some of the Directors of the Canal Company are also Directors of the Railway Company. They have an agreement in operation that they will take traffic according to arrangement at certain contract points so far as the canal and railways are concerned. The Canal Company shows in its balance sheet for 1921 a figure of £13,333 representing deferred maintenance. That was a sum voted by the British Government out of the Irish taxpayers' or traders' pockets for the purpose of building new boats or putting their boats in a proper and satisfactory condition. That amount still remains in the balance sheet of the Grand Canal Co. In that year also they show £38,500 as money on deposit and on loan. Seeing that the Directors of this particular company are the men who run the Dublin Stock Exchange, I cannot understand why they would leave £38,500 on deposit at 1½ per cent. while there was a possibility of having a little flutter and securing a better rate of interest. Some of those very people have advised the Irish people to have nothing to do with internal loans. Now you see what you are faced with. I do not wish to worry the Dáil by going at any considerable length into figures, but on looking at the 1921 balance sheet of the Grand Canal Co., I think any Deputy will find it very hard to discover what amounts have been set aside under different headings. For Accident Insurance and Contingency funds in 1920 the amount was £5,337; in 1921 the amount was increased to £27,552, so that all the available Contingency and Reserve funds of the Canal Co. had a considerable increase in every direction. Seeing the reserve funds have been added to to that extent, I contend that the Minister is not justified in giving powers such as are in Clause 3, enabling the canal companies to carry on at the same rates as heretofore when labour and the cost of materials were at their highest points.
I notice also in the balance sheet for 1921 £759 representing unclaimed dividends. These must be very conscientious people to leave their money with the Canal Company unclaimed. Possibly they may devote it at a later stage to some charitable fund with which the Government may be connected. There is another aspect of Canal Control which I think it is desirable I should draw attention to. The Grand Canal Company, as a carrying company, has the same number of boats plying on the Grand Canal as what are known as the bye-traders, yet the bye-traders, who use on the canal only half the number of boats, have to pay actually up to 80 per cent. of the cost of maintenance. I notice Deputy Gorey looking at me very curiously with regard to that, but, I think if he examines the balance sheet of this Company, he will find I am correct. There is another aspect to which it is necessary to draw attention, and that is that 52 per cent. of all the traffic carried over the canals consists of agricultural produce, and that was one reason why I thought Deputy Gorey and his colleagues in the Dáil should take a greater interest in matters of this kind than such a person as myself.
You are too modest.
Now, the Canal and Railway rates are agreed and revised in conference where both the canal and Railway companies are represented. I contend that where the railway companies refuse to decrease their rates, the canal companies will carry on under the present powers given them under this Bill. I urge the Minister, therefore, at the earliest possible date, to consider the formation of a tribunal that would take the place of the Rates Tribunal that existed when the Treaty was signed. That body, which would have very extensive powers, would be called upon to deal with the grievances of traders and others who consider that they are being very unfairly treated by the railway company and the canals. During the last day or two I happened to be speaking to people in the West of Ireland, and I understand that the railway companies with lines running to that part of the country from Belfast give the towns in the West of Ireland considerably reduced and special rates from Belfast. They give reduced rates into Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon and Cavan, and they are doing all they can to capture and hold the West of Ireland trade by methods of that kind. I was told, in the case of meal and flour, that the unmanufactured article, which costs £10 or £11, was actually sold in the shape of flour or meal for 10s. extra. Taking into consideration the cost of freight charges and the cost of manufacturing, one cannot see how such a thing can be done. I do know that during the period of the Belfast Boycott, which was cancelled after the signing of the Treaty, Belfast traders who had certain Southern traders on their list actually sent goods into the South of Ireland without being ordered. In some cases the goods arrived, and in other cases the goods were destroyed. In all these cases, although there were no orders given for the goods, at the present moment Belfast merchants are prosecuting and summoning Southern traders for the recovery of the amounts involved. There is one particular reason why I wish to stress the position regarding the question of canal rates, and that is, if the peat industry in this country is to get any assistance, or to be developed on proper lines, the canals are the natural highways by which this particular class of traffic can be dealt with at an economic rate. We are faced with the position at present in this country of having to depend upon fifty-five per cent. of coal for heating and producing purposes sent here from England. If this Government intends to give any assistance to the development of the peat industry, so that the import of coal can be reduced to a minimum, these freights and tolls over the canals, which are the only natural highways for carrying such traffic, must be considerably reduced. The position at present is that peat is charged the same as coal for freights and tolls. Taking what the selling value should be in normal conditions, and the heat producing power of peat and coal, the freight for peat should be considerably lowered and should be considerably less than that on imported coal. I urge the consideration of these things on the Minister as a reason for the setting up of a tribunal that can alter or amend portion of Clause 3 of this Bill. I do contend that if the Government delays in making a declaration of their policy regarding the future of undertakings such as the canals and railways, it is a delay at the cost of the trading community, and by delaying you are adding to, instead of decreasing, the amount of unemployment in this country.
Do I understand that the Minister intends that the fares of the Cork Tramway Company and other Corporations shall be investigated by the Inquiry which he is going to set up?
As regards the point raised by Deputy Hennessy, the undertaking given the last day was that the rates and charges of the Dublin Tramway Company should be investigated by the Inquiry. With regard to the Cork Tramway Company, the Ministry has power, on representation being made to it in the ordinary regular manner, to have the case for an increase or a reduction of charges of the Cork Tramway Company inquired into and investigated if this Bill becomes law. If the Bill does not become law the Ministry will not have that power. With regard to Deputy Davin's objection to the Bill, I would point out, in the first instance, that Deputy Davin dealt largely with Railway Companies. This Bill does not deal with Railway Companies at all. Deputy Davin is, I understand, a member of a Commission set up to investigate the case for the canals, and he said with regard to the canals——
I wish to point out to the Minister that I dealt with nothing. I would be very slow to deal with any subject that would come within the terms of reference of that Commission. I did not want the Minister to harp upon that. I could say many things that I have not said, but, being a member of that Commission, I refrained from doing so.
Now we know where you got your information.
Deputy Davin is a member of that Commission, and my point is that a lot of the things he has given the Dáil is information which could very well be submitted to the Canals Commission.
An inquiry by that Commission is proceeding, and the Ministry awaits a Report from that Commission. On a case being put up by the Commission the Ministry will certainly act, but I would point out to Deputy Davin that if this Bill does not become law there will be no occasion to act.
But might I point out to the Minister that no Commission, the Canal Commission or any other, has authority to deal with or set up a Rates Tribunal, and that is a contention I put up.
I am endeavouring to point out to the Deputy that on a case being made by the Canal Commission the Ministry would act, but Deputy Davin will not give us the power to act. He stated in the opening of his address that the Ministry was getting power to continue increased rates for an extended period. The Bill gives the Ministry power to increase the rates if they find there be a case for increasing the rates, but the Bill also provides the power whereby the Ministry may reduce the rates if it find the rates should be reduced. The Bill merely proposes power to the Ministry to increase rates or to reduce rates. That is the position. On representation being made to the Ministry with regard to canals the Ministry will act in a similar way to that in which we will act in regard to tramways if the Bill becomes law.
The Minister is still going on the assumption that the first thing to do is to give the companies power to maintain the increases; then you can come to us if you can persuade the Ministry to force a reduction. But the Bill is first of all saying "You may continue your increased charges before the case for these increased charges has been made," and that is the point of Deputy Davin's argument. The Minister is trying to evade that by saying "Let these people increase their charges or continue their increased charges, and then we will consider about making provision for a reduction." Again, as we contended on the earlier stages of the Bill, the case for continuing increased charges should first be made, and it has not yet been made to the Dáil.
I think I pointed out on the Committee Stage the other day that it is not my duty to make a case for increased charges. If there are no increased charges there obviously will be no case for setting up an inquiry to reduce charges——
Hear, hear; but they will revert back to the pre-war——
But I think equally obviously, taking the cost of labour and other costs incidental to the working of the various means of transport referred to in the Bill, there is a case for increased charges. As to whether the charges ruling at present are excessive or not is a case for investigation. If the case be made to the Ministry that there should be an investigation, the Ministry will investigate, but if we do not have increased charges after the 31st May, obviously there will be no necessity for an investigation.
As this question of the Canal Commission has been raised, I wish to say that our Party and the people we represent in the country did not get representation on this Commission. Although we asked for it, we were deliberately ignored, and that is the reason why we are not in possession of figures that Deputy Davin is in possession of.
Might I point out to Deputy Gorey that the figures I used are available in the public Press, and the account can be got if he likes to give a shilling for it
I do not think so.
I cannot follow the Minister very clearly. I think it is admitted by all that the charges are absolutely extravagant. Everybody agrees that that is so. There is no use in talking of the cost of labour, and this and that and the other thing. Take up the balance-sheets which are being published and look at the enormous profits given there and the enormous dividends paid. I do not think it should be necessary for any particular individual or set of individuals to approach the Minister and say, "We want you to investigate the state of affairs of this company." The Ministry should take the initiative and say, "We are going to investigate its affairs."
I should point out that Deputy Hennessy has expressed an opinion, but he is wrong if he assumes that a case has not been made to the Ministry why charges should be increased on the pre-war standard. He is quite wrong in that.
